VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by defendant no.6/applicant to seek rejection of the plaint qua defendant no.6. Learned senior counsel for defendant no.6/applicant has primarily made two submissions. Learned counsels for the plaintiff have appeared on advance notice and countered those submissions.

2. The first submission of Mr. Phoolka is that, qua defendant no.6, there are no specific averments made in the plaint alleging the making of any defamatory statement by him against the plaintiff. It is submitted that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to seek the relief of damages against all the defendants including defendant no.6/applicant, on the premise that the defendants had made defamatory statements in relation to the plaintiff.

3. Mr. Phoolka points out that in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has set out the several statements attributed to the other defendants made on various dates beginning 15.12.2015. However, qua defendant no.6, there is no such averment to be found in the plaint. Mr. Phoolka submits that since there is no specific averment made qua defendant no.6 in the plaint, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff – in relation to the statements attributed to defendant no.6, can also not be looked into for the purpose of consideration of the present application. It is submitted that apart from the plaint, it is only the documents which are referred to in the plaint which could be looked into, to ascertain whether – on the reading of the plaint and documents referred to, a cause of action is disclosed against a particular defendant. In this regard, he places reliance on the observation made by this Court in Arunesh Punetha v. Boston Scientific Corporation & Ors., 2006 (3) AD (Del) 141. He particularly relies on the following observations made in paragraph 8 of the said decision:

“8. .... .... Thus, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this Court must look into the plaint and the documents filed on record and more particularly the documents, which have been referred in the plaint to determine the merits of the application filed by the defendant-applicant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure”.

4. Mr. Phoolka further submits that the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the plaint cannot be considered as a good affidavit in the eyes of law. He submits that in the affidavit filed with the plaint, the plaintiff, in paragraph 2, inter alia, states:

“2. .... .... I have perused the contents of the accompanying plaint and state that the statement of fact contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information received and believed to be correct and the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit, which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity”.

5. He submits that this Court has held that such an affidavit is no affidavit in the eyes of law. In this regard, he places reliance on the observation of this Court found in Hira Lal v. Amarjit Singh, 1977 RLR 520. The Court while dealing with the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of eviction proceedings, observed:

“2. In no affidavit has the petitioner said which part was based on information and which on belief. Nowhere he has divulged the source of his information or the grounds of his belief. Where the matter deposed to is not based on personal knowledge but on information, the sources of information ought to be clearly disclosed. The petitioner's several affidavits infringe the provisions of Order 19, Rule 3, when they should have been strictly observed. Such affidavits being vocative of the requirements of the mandatory provisions of law, deserve to be ignored. The words that the contents of the affidavits "are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief" carry no sanctity and such a verification cannot be accepted. It has been held over and